UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL & MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

FMM 62624 NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING AND EVALUATION

ASSIGNMENT: LAB EXPERIMENT REPORT;

 VISUAL-OPTICAL INSPECTION
 LIQUID –PENETRANT TESTING
 MAGNETIC PARTICLE TESTING
 UTRASONIC TESTING
 RADIOGRAPHIC TESTING

SUBMITTED BY: BERYL AKINYI SEWE

REG. No: F56/44829/2023

INSTRUCTOR: Dr. JOHN BIRIR……….……………………………………..DATE:…12/03/2024……

 LAB EXPERIMENT REPORT ON VISUAL-OPTICAL INSPECTION

1.0 OBJECTIVE OF LAB EXPERIMENT

Carry out visual inspection on a welded surface to detect surface defects/impurities common with this type
of Non-Destructive test.

2.0 ABSTRACT
This lab experiment focused on the welding defects and discontinuity identification. Two metal specimens;
a flat rectangular plate and a cylindrical pipe. The welded plate consisted of two horizontally joined
rectangular plates (butt-joint welded) was observed through visual inspection. Surface preparation and
procedures were adhered to before visual inspection. Cylindrical specimen was also butt-joint welded and
as well observed through visual inspection. This was done by use of naked eye, camera, and magnifying
glass. Defects and discontinuities that were observed and identified include;
a) Under fill
b) Under Cut
c) Spatter beads
d) Overfill
e) Incomplete fusion
f) Incomplete penetration
g) Uneven Surface
The size and dimensions related to each defect/discontinuity was recorded in the report results. The
acceptable limits for imperfections was used to analyze and conclude on the final defects that can be
regarded as relevant and accepted.

3.0 INTRODUCTION
Visual Inspection is Non-Destructive Testing technique that is used to find surface defects and
discontinuities by use of naked eye, direct visual aids (magnifying glass, microscope, and lights), and
remote visual inspection (camera, fiberscopes, bore scopes, and video tech.). It is the most popular Non-
Destructive method applied in industry. This technique is also useful in industry maintenance processes.
Some factors that affect effective visual inspection include; light, cleanliness, shape, size, surface condition,
environment. In addition other human factors such as physiological, psychological, and perception.
Some of the defects and discontinuities easily observed and identified through this type of Non-Destructive
Testing are commonly; Ingots, forging, rolling, castings, misalignment, under-fill, under, overlap,
excessive reinforcement, burn through.

2
4.0 MATERIALS, METHODS AND PROCEDURE

4.1 Materials

Materials used in visual inspection are stated as follows;

a) Welded material (specimen)

b) Light
c) Ruler
d) Camera
e) Magnifying glasses with varying resolutions.

4.2 Methods

Visual Inspection testing method was carried out by close eye observation on both sides of the welded parts.
For the rectangular welded plate specimen, defects and discontinuities were closely observed by naked eye
and use of magnifying glasses. The cylindrical specimen was also observed using naked eyes and
magnifying glass. Observed defects/discontinuities were identified and their particular dimensions at the x
and y axis taken. Relative distances of each defect/discontinuity from the weld datum were measured and
recorded.

4.3 Procedure

a) Specimen; the rectangular and cylindrical welded specimen were prepared by wiping the surface for
clear vision.

b) On the weld, an approximate datum was drawn symmetric on the weld surface for each specimen.
c) Defects/discontinuities were observed identified by naked eye and a magnifying glass under required
light intensity.
d) X-axis and Y-axis dimensions of the defects/discontinuities were measured from the datum and recorded.
e) The dimensions (weld defect cap and root) were compared with the standard acceptable values and
regarded as acceptable or not
acceptable.

5.0 RESULTS/FINDINGS

5.1 Rectangular Specimen

Types of defects and discontinuities observed on the welded specimen were analyzed herein.

3
i) Top surface of the weld
ii) Bottom surface of the weld.

Figure 1: Photographed specimen under observation

Figure 2: Schematic drawing indicating located defects/discontinuities on top side of weld

4
5
Figure 3: Schematic drawing indicating located defects/discontinuities on bottom side of weld

6
5.2 Hollow Cylindrical Specimen

Types of defects and discontinuities observed on the welded specimen were analyzed herein.

i) Top outer surface of the weld

ii) Bottom/inner surface of the weld.

Figure 4: Photographed specimen under observation

Outer welded surface

Inner welded surface

7
Figure 5: Schematic drawing indicating located defects/discontinuities on outer side of weld

8
6.0 DISCUSSION

The rectangular and hollow cylindrical weld specimen had indications observed from the (top, bottom) and
(inner, outer) surfaces respectively with naked eye and magnifying glass as visual aid. The type of surface
defects/discontinuity findings are as tabulated below;

6.1 Rectangular weld specimen findings

Top Surface Bottom Surface

Defect/ Size/Dimensions Quality Defect/ Size/Dimension Quality
Discontinuity limits Discontinuity s Limits
Under fill Length of 0.6mm Edge overlap and Width of 0.5mm Not
acceptable under relevant
reinforcement
Linear defect of an Length of
uneven surface Length of 2.7cm More than Over fill 0.4cm/4mm Less than
10mm 5mm
Not Width of acceptable
permitted 0.5cm/5mm
Linear surface defect 0.8mm, 0.7mm, Linear Defect Length range;
ranges 0.7mm acceptable 3.0cm to 4.6cm Not
=1.6cm/16mm permitted
More than
10mm

6.2 Hollow cylindrical weld specimen findings

Top Surface Bottom Surface

Defect/ Size/Dimensions Quality Defect/ Size/Dimensions Quality
Discontinuity limits Discontinuity limits
Length range
Under cut 0.4mm acceptable Incomplete
penetration X axis 7.7cm acceptable

Y Axis 0.4cm

Incomplete fusion Undefined range all not well Spatter beads Undefined
through the weld observed dimensions
across the datum
Spatter beads 0.8mm, 0.7mm, Uneven surface Not relevant
0.7mm not relevant
Length Range;
Under cut X axis 1.6cm not permitted Linear surface Range of defects
defect due to
Y axis 0.3cm mechanical X axis 9.9cm to Not relevant
damage through 11.2 cm
surface
preparation Y axis 0.2cm
Length range;
Over fill X axis; 1.7cm not relevant

9
 Y axis; 0.9cm

The findings were compared with the common standard acceptable limits of defects /imperfections. The
quality limits were relative to the type of defect, however the values were approximate and within the
acceptable limits. Some of the defects were regarded as irrelevant indicators, especially those that were
generated during surface preparation prior to the welding process.

7.0 CONCLUSION

The main defects or discontinuities that were identified through visual inspection of the welded surfaces
are;
a) Under fill
b) Over fill
c) Incomplete fusion
d) Linear defect indications
e) Scatter beads
f) Incomplete penetration
g) Edge over lap and under reinforcement

Some defects were acceptable as the thickness measured were within acceptable limits as per universal
standards. Some defects that could not be accurately measured or well defined via naked eye observations.
Defects that occurred prior to welding were regarded as irrelevant indications mostly identified as linear
surface defects along the weld roots.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Improvised techniques of welding with high level of precision should be developed to eliminate welding
defects such as incomplete penetration, over fill, under fills etc. Use of laser beam technology can result in
less defect weld outcomes.

Design of flexible gadgets that can measure minute defect thickness needs to be a research, development
and design factor in future of smart welding and maintenance engineering.

9.0 REFERENCES

1. https://fractory.com/welding-defects-types-causes-prevention/
2. Acceptance criteria of weld defects as per different codes, Dr.G Ravichandran, and Bhel
3. AWS D1.1 Structural welding codes
4. https://www.weldingandndt.com/acceptance-criteria-for-weld-defects/#:~

10
11
 LAB EXPERIMENT REPORT ON LIQUID - PENETRANT TESTING

1.0 OBJECTIVE OF LAB EXPERIMENT

To find the open-to surface cracks on the given welded specimen using dye penetration technique.

2.0 ABSTRACT
This lab experiment focused on the welding defects and discontinuity identification that are open-to surface
of which Red Dye-penetrant test was employed. Water washable removable Red dye penetrant and solvent
removable fluorescent dye penetrant demonstration was carried out. The welded plate consisted of two
horizontally joined rectangular plates (butt-joint welded). The procedure in sequence entailed pre-cleaning
of surface, application of penetrant with a dwell time of 7 minutes, removal of excess penetrant, application
of developer, with a dwell time of 8 minutes, identification or examination of surface discontinuities, and
finally cleaning of the specimen surface after results capture. Defects and discontinuities that were observed
and identified include;
a) Under fill
b) Incomplete penetration
c) Linear and rounded indications
The size and dimensions related to each defect/discontinuity was recorded in the report results. The
acceptable limits for imperfections was used to analyze and conclude on the final defects that can be
regarded as relevant and accepted. The dominant discontinuity observed was linear indication as a crack. It
was concluded that Liquid –penetrant testing technique is effective in testing for discontinuities and defects
that are near a material’s surface.

3.0 INTRODUCTION
Dye penetrant testing method a category of liquid penetrant testing is a type of Non-Destructive test method
that is normally employed for purposes of detecting open-to-surface discontinuities on non-porous metals
and commonly applied on non-magnetic type of metals. The main principle behind its affectivity is the
capillary action a surface tension phenomenon that permits liquids to be drawn into tight openings as a
result of the energies that are present at the surfaces of the openings.

In this test process, a liquid penetrant is applied to the surface of the product for a certain predetermined
time, after which the excess penetrant is removed from the surface. The surface is then dried and a developer
is applied to it. The penetrant which remains in the discontinuity is absorbed by the developer to indicate
the presence as well as the location, size and nature of the discontinuity

12
The two types of penetrants used for this test are either, the visible dye penetrant or fluorescent dye
penetrant. Visible dye indications is made under white light while for the fluorescent dye penetrant is made
under ultraviolet (or black) light under darkened conditions.
The liquid penetrant processes vary according to the method of washing of the specimen. The penetrants
can be:
(i) water-washable,
(ii) Post – emulsifiable (an emulsifier is added to the excess penetrant on surface of the specimen to make
it water-washable), and
(iii) Solvent removable (excess penetrant is needed to be dissolved in a solvent to remove it from the test
specimen surface.)
Types of Liquid penetrant procedures can be listed as:
(1) Post emulsifiable fluorescent dye penetrant.
(2) Solvent removable fluorescent dye penetrant.
(3) Water washable fluorescent dye penetrant.
(4) Post emulsifiable visible dye penetrant.
(5) Solvent removable visible dye penetrant.
(6) Water washable visible dye penetrant.

In this particular Lab experiment, water washable removable Red dye penetrant and solvent removable
fluorescent dye penetrant demonstration were employed on a non-magnetic metal welded material.

4.0 MATERIALS, METHODS AND PROCEDURE

4.1 Materials

Materials used for the liquid penetrant testing procedures;

a) Pre-cleaning penetrant remover;

Brand- KARL DEUSTCH
Model-PR-1
Art No; 9902
Serial No.3111Year of Manufacture; 31-09-2021

b) i) Developer
Brand- KARL DEUSTCH
Model-SD-1
Art No; 9903
Serial No.4048

13
Year of Manufacture; 09-10-2012
ii) Red dye developer
Brand- KARL DEUSTCH
Model-RDP-1
Art No; 9901
Serial No.4047
Year of Manufacture; 09-10-2012

c) Solvent

d) Welded material (specimen)

e) White light at 600Lax

f) Black light

Light Meter/Photometer

Make: PRC KROCHMAN

Serial No. 120916

4.1.2 Photos of specimen and pre-cleaning penetrant remover and dye penetrant solvent.

Figure 1: Penetrants and developers Figure 2: Pre cleaned welded specimen for
test

14
4.2 Methods

The method of liquid penetrant testing for this lab experiment were the water washable/solvent removable
visible dye and fluorescent penetrant testing. Liquid penetrant inspections aimed at checking for material
flaws open to the surface by flowing very thin liquid into the flaw and then drawing the liquid out with a
chalk-like developer. The aerosol cans used are for the cleaner, penetrant and the developer. White light
intensity of about 600 Lax was conditioned.

4.3 Procedure

i) Specimen surface pre-cleaning; using a pre-cleaner, dirt, dust and any other contaminant was removed
from the weld surface. The picture below shows the specimen pre-cleaned surface.

Figure 3: Pre- cleaned welded surface

ii) Red Dye Penetrant was sprayed on the cleaned weld surface and left for a dwell time of approximately
7 minutes.

15
Figure 4: Application of the Red Dye penetrant.

iii) Excess red dye penetrant on the weld surface was removed by either water for water washable and
solvent for solvent removable by spraying solvent on weld surface with careful wiping.

iv) A developer of medium thickness (not thin or thick) was sprayed onto the weld surface with a dwell
time of approximately 8 minutes.

Figure 5: Applied developer

v) Identification of any surface defects/discontinuities after observing bright red indications on the surface
upon dwell time elapsing.

Figure 6: Indication of defects/discontinuities in bright red dye colour.

16
vi) Cleaning of the welded surface through removal of the developer and penetrant by water washing or
solvent application.

5.0 RESULTS/FINDINGS

5.1 Rectangular Specimen

Types of defects and discontinuities observed on the welded specimen were analyzed herein.

i) Top surface of the weld

Discontinuities observed;
Rounded indications; at x axis = 5.5cm
Linear crack indication; at x axis range of 2.4cm and at y axis y= 0.8cm

ii) Bottom surface of the weld6

Rounded indications at x axis x=1.2cm and on the y axis y=0.3cm

6.0 DISCUSSION

The discontinuities observed at the surface indicates rounded discontinuities and linear crack indications
along the top side of the welded surface with dimensions along both x axis and y axis indicating the exact
location of the discontinuities detected.

The dimensions highlighted in the findings are acceptable as per the standard acceptable criteria for linear
defects and rounded indications in liquid-penetrant testing;

Relevant Indications: Indications with major dimensions greater than 1.5 mm (1/16 in.) shall be
considered relevant.
Linear Indication: Any indication with a length greater than three times the width.
Rounded Indication: Any indication with a length equal to or less than three times the width. A
rounded indication may be of circular or elliptical shape.

On the bottom side of the specimen, on the welded surface, round indications were also observed. The most
conspicuous open-to surface discontinuity is the linear cracks. Such type of crack could not be easily
identified through the visual inspection technique. Some of the factors that affected and hindered outcome
of some expected indications were, dwell time, the thickness or thinness of the applied penetrant and
developers, and the degree of smoothness of the specimen welded surface.

17
7.0 CONCLUSION

The main defects or discontinuities that were identified through dye-penetrant test of the welded surfaces
are;
a) Linear defect indications
b) Under fill
c) Under reinforcement, which are rounded and linear discontinuities as described.

The indications justify the outcome of liquid penetrant testing which is a technique advantageous to an
objective of detecting linear surface cracks on non-porous materials.
This type of technique does not maintain permanent records of the test as the test surface is cleaned after
experiment.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

For optimal indications of expected discontinuities to be achieved, materials surfaces needs to be cleaned
and levelled or smoothened before carrying out dye-penetrant testing.

Some surface discontinuities can be very tiny and might need observation under magnifying devices for
study and research purposes.

9.0 REFERENCES

1. https://www.weldingandndt.com/acceptance-criteria-for-weld-defects/
2. https://www.scribd.com/presentation/258018927/Acceptance-Criteria-of-Weld-Defects-as-Per-
Different-Codes
3. NDE Handbook, Butterworth-Heinemann (1989), Pages 72-80,
4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780408043922500138

18
19
 LAB EXPERIMENT REPORT ON MAGNETIC PARTICLE TESTING

1.0 OBJECTIVE OF LAB EXPERIMENT

To locate surface flaws on the given welded specimen using Magnetic Particle Testing technique.

2.0 ABSTRACT
This Lab experiment sought to detect flaws that are at the near surface or at the surface of the specimen
material. The ferromagnetic material was subjected to a method of Magnetic flux flow technique where
magnetic flux was induced into the specimen by the use of flowing current through the AC magnetic yoke.
The material was surface cleaned, a white background sprayed on it at a medium thickness, followed by
black ink spray, and an AC Magnetic Yoke pressed on the weld surface for 2 seconds, while consistently
creating magnetic flux lines perpendicular to each other in alternating sequence for optimal detection of
surface discontinuity. Pie gauge was used to detect the magnetic flux line directions. A linear discontinuity
(crack) was identified at the surface of the specimen material. Its’ dimensions were compared with the
standard acceptable values and concluded as acceptable. After the test, the material surface was cleaned
and a gauss meter used to check for residual magnetism which was at 16MT. The specimen was then
demagnetized for future use and testing.

3.0 INTRODUCTION
Magnetic particle testing is a Non-destructive testing method for detecting discontinuities that are primarily
linear and located at or near the surface of ferromagnetic components and structures. It is governed by the
laws of magnetism and restricted to the inspection of materials that can support magnetic flux lines. Metals
can be classified as: ferromagnetic, paramagnetic, or diamagnetic. Ferromagnetic metals are those that are
strongly attracted to a magnet and can become easily magnetized e.g iron, nickel, and cobalt. Paramagnetic
metals such as austenitic stainless steels are very weakly attracted by magnetic forces of attraction and
cannot be magnetized while Diamagnetic metals are very slightly repelled by a magnet and cannot be
magnetized e.g include bismuth, gold, and antimony. Only metals classified as ferromagnetic can be
effectively inspected by Magnetic particle testing.
In this method the test specimen is first magnetized either by using a permanent or an electromagnet or by
passing electric current through or around the specimen. The magnetic field thus introduced into the
specimen is composed of magnetic lines of force. Whenever there is a flaw which interrupts the flow of
magnetic lines of force, some of these lines must exit and re-enter the specimen. These points of exit and
re-entry form opposite magnetic poles. Whenever minute magnetic particles are sprinkled onto the surface

20
of such a specimen, these particles are attracted by these magnetic poles to create a visual indication
approximating the size and shape of the flaw.

4.0 MATERIALS, METHODS AND PROCEDURE

4.1 Materials

a) Magnetic Yoke (AC Yoke)

Make; Gammatech
Model; MY-2
S/No. 1211234
220Volts
50/Hz

b) White Background
Brand: ARDROX
Art No. 8903W
Batch: 120612

c) Back Magnetic Ink

Brand: ARDROX
Art No. 8003W
Batch: 111512

21
d) Gaussmeter
Make; Gammatech
Model; CYHT201
S/No. Y110741
Year of Manufacture; February, 2012

Brand: KARL DEUSTCH

Model; EN12223
S/No. 44455

e) Rectangular butt welded metallic specimen

f) Measuring ruler
g) Magnetic pie gauge

4.2 Method

Magnetic flux flow technique was the method employed in this experiment, where magnetic flux was
induced into the specimen by the use of flowing current through the AC magnetic yoke.

22
4.3 Procedure

a) Specimen material surface was properly pre-cleaned

b) White background was applied by spraying unto the welded surface

c) Black ink was applied after the white background sprayed on the weld surface.

d) The AC Magnetic Yoke was pressed on the welded surface and current induced for about 2 seconds
repeatedly at 90◦ angle for optimal and accurate detection of surface discontinuities. This is as illustrated
in the photograph below.

e) The pie gauge was used to detect or confirm the magnetic flux direction on the welded surface.

f) Discontinuities were identified following magnetic flux leakage as a result of a flaw /discontinuity
which was a linear crack.

23
g) The surface was cleaned after examination using the ADROX 5903 solvent

h) The specimen was demagnetized and any residual magnetism checked using the gaussmeter. The
specimen had 0.16MT

5.0 RESULTS/FINDINGS

From the photo above, the clear linear indication (crack) was observed on the specimen after magnetic
particle testing procedure was carried out.

6.0 DISCUSSION

The discontinuity identified was a linear crack which appeared fine than the similar crack displayed the
other Non-Destructive tests (Liquid-penetrant and Visual Inspection tests). This Indication was considered
relevant as its linear dimension was greater than 1.5 mm (1/16 in.) as per acceptable standards for
Magnetic Particle Testing.

This type of Non-destructive testing can be most suitable for detecting of near surface and surface cracks
due to the fine outline of the flaws observed. This is achieved through the contrast created between the
black ink and white background and with the alignment of magnetic flux. The method was fast, simple and
apparatus and instruments used were portable making it convenient for short notice tests planning.

However, this effectiveness is only achievable with the test carried out on ferromagnetic materials only.
And current effects, and demagnetization of material make it difficult for every test carried out. It was also
observed that the magnetic flux direction is a crucial factor in detecting the near surface discontinuities.

7.0 CONCLUSION

24
The defect clearly detected from the Magnetic Particle Testing method was a linear crack at the surface.
This defect was not identified by Visual inspection or Dye penetrant tests due to its fineness. Hence
Magnetic particle testing is a suitable Non-destructive testing for hidden, small and fine surface and near
surface discontinuities.

8.0 REFERENCES
1. Liquid Penetrant and Magnetic Particle Testing at Level 2 Manual for the Syllabi Contained in IAEA-
TECDOC-628, “Training Guidelines in Non-destructive Testing Techniques”
2. https://www.weldingandndt.com/acceptance-criteria-for-weld-defects/
3. https://www.tfgusa.com/magnetic-particle-inspection/
4. https://www.onestopndt.com/ndt-articles/magnetic-particle-testing

LAB EXPERIMENT REPORT ULTRASONIC TESTING

25
1.0 OBJECTIVE OF LAB EXPERIMENT

To test for size and location of internal defects of a material through Ultrasonic method of Non-
Destructive Testing.

2.0 ABSTRACT
Ultrasonic testing method was conducted on a specimen to detect flaws/discontinuity at the internal position
of the material. The method adopted was Ultrasonic testing of introducing compression waves through the
specimen surface to its back end surface and reflected back to top surface through the probe and a coupling
liquid in contact with the specimen surface. The ultrasonic equipment was calibrated to enhance accuracy.
The distance from the probe to the detected defect and the circular cavity on the specimen were read on the
ultrasonic equipment screen. The accuracy was achieved through variation of amplitude/gain. The visible
cavity and material thickness was physically measured and compared to the values of measurements
recorded from the ultrasonic equipment screen. An internal defect was detected at 14mm distance from the
probe.

3.0 INTRODUCTION
Ultrasonic inspection is a non-destructive method in which high frequency sound waves are introduced into
the material being inspected. Most ultrasonic inspection is done at frequencies between 0.5 and 20 MHz,
well above the range of human hearing which is about 20 Hz to 20 kHz. The sound waves travel through
the material with some loss of energy (attenuation) due to material characteristics. The intensity of sound
waves is either measured, after reflection (pulse echo) at interfaces (or flaw) or is measured at the opposite
surface of the specimen (pulse transmission). The reflected beam is detected and analyzed to define the
presence and location of flaws. The degree of reflection depends largely on the physical state of matter on
the opposite side of the interface, and to a lesser extent on specific physical properties of that matter, for
instance, sound waves are almost completely reflected at metal-gas interfaces. Partial reflection occurs at
metal-liquid or metal-solid interfaces. Ultrasonic testing has a superior penetrating power than radiography
and can detect flaws deep in the test specimen (say up to about 6 to 7 meter of steel). It is quite sensitive to
small flaws and allows the precise determination of the location and size of the flaws.

4.0 MATERIALS, METHODS AND PROCEDURE

26
4.1 Materials

a) Specimen set material

Serial No: 44455

Model: EN2223

b) Liquid couplant e.g oil

c) Probe

d) Ultrasonic equipment

27
e) Ruler for measurement

4.2 Method

The method used for this type of ultrasonic testing was ultrasonic “A” Scan testing.
This technique required calibration of the ultrasonic instrument connected to a probe which generated
pulses of the ultrasonic waves that travelled to the specimen material at “0” probe. These waves were
reflected by the flaw/cavity and the back of the specimen to produce signals. The distance from the probe
to the defects were interpreted and read from the screen for both vertical and horizontal.

4.3 Procedure

a) Adequate amount of oil between the probe and specimen was ensured
b) The initial signal pulses on the ultrasonic instrument screen were used for measurement purposes. This
was identified as where the left hand almost vertical line of the two lines which formed an ultrasonic signal
met at the bottom of the screen.
c) The ultrasonic reading was taken through variation of readable amplitudes.
(c) The travel distance of the wave to the defect (such as the cavity and back of the specimen) and back to
the probe was divided by 2 to obtain the distance of the defect from the probe. The distance was used on
the screen of the ultrasonic instrument. For example for a defect 25 mm from the probe the travel distance
is 50 mm.
d) The readings appeared on the screen upon proper positioning of probe and adjustment of the amplitude.

28
5.0 RESULTS/FINDINGS

Specimen

Ultrasonic Physical Measurement

equipment reading Reading

Detected defect: 14mm Not visible; defect is

distance from the internal
probe
The circular
cavity distance 45.4mm 45.6mm
from the probe
Thickness 25.1 mm 25.6mm

6.0 DISCUSSION
The measurements were narrowly different between the ultrasound readings and the physically
measurement values. Internal defects that are not appearing at the surface or near surface can be effectively
detected through ultrasonic testing method. The sources of error and factors affecting accuracy while using
the ultrasonic equipment was the amount of couplant used and contact pressure which could cause some
deviation or differences in readings.

7.0 CONCLUSION
Ultrasonic testing is highly suitable for small defects that are internally placed in materials. This method is
highly precise for detecting small discontinuities. It needs experienced skill in handling and calibrating
equipment. The value of distance from the flaw detected to the probe was 14mm which is within acceptable
limits for the for ultrasonic testing criteria.

29
8.0 REFERENCES

1. Halmshaw, R., Non-destructive Testing, Edward Arnold, 1987

2. Prasad J. and Nair, G.C.K., Non-Destructive Test and Evaluation of Materials,
TataMcGraw-Hill, 2008
3.
http://www.ndted.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Ultrasonics/Introduction/description.htm
4. ULTRASONIC TESTING OF MATERIALS AT LEVEL 2, IAEA, VIENNA 1988, IAEA-TECDOC-
462

30